How did the "cultural" preference for high color/clarity begin?

[WinkHPD]

I just learned my "at least one thing" today. I did not know that carriers of color blindness were more perceptive of color than us "normals".

Frankly, I am more than a little bit envious.

wink

 

[CareBear]

I just learned my "at least one thing" today. I did not know that carriers of color blindness were more perceptive of color than us "normals".

Frankly, I am more than a little bit envious.

wink

As I consumer, I prefer the opposite, the less color perceptive I am, the better for my bank account balance

 

[cflutist]

I just learned my "at least one thing" today. I did not know that carriers of color blindness were more perceptive of color than us "normals".

Frankly, I am more than a little bit envious.

wink

I learned something new today too. My father and brother are colorblind. I wonder if I am a carrier too? Might explain why I can see variations of tint, hue, tone, and saturation so well.

 

[Johnbt]

Don't be too envious. Carriers of the gene for colorblindness can also have slightly impaired color vision due to X inactivation.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask349

From the summary at the end...

"Carriers are Different

Scientists have tested women with two working opsin genes (Five classical groups of opsins are involved in vision) against women who carry a nonworking copy. They found that the groups perform differently in certain vision tests.

For instance, when colorblind people look at Ishihara plates, they only see random dots. People with normal color vision see numbers hidden in the different colors.

Carriers of colorblindness see the numbers hidden in the Ishitara plates under normal light. But, when they look at the plates illuminated under a green light, they tend to make many more mistakes compared to women with normal color vision.

Carriers also have some trouble seeing lights of a certain color when they are flashed in parts of their peripheral vision. And there are probably other minor problems too.

But in everyday life, it would be hard to tell the two groups apart. For all intents and purposes, carriers are not colorblind.

And that's why there aren't more women who are colorblind despite X-inactivation"

_____________

I've always had a slight interest in the field because I'm a moderate deuton. Note the part in the following description about "too sensitive to yellows" JT

"Deutons are people with deuteranomaly, a type of red-green color blindness in which green cones do not detect enough green and are too sensitive to yellows, oranges, and reds.

As a result, greens, yellows, oranges, reds, and browns may appear similar, especially in low light. It can also be difficult to tell the difference between blues and purples, or pinks and grays."

 

[CareBear]

I learned something new today too. My father and brother are colorblind. I wonder if I am a carrier too? Might explain why I can see variations of tint, hue, tone, and saturation so well.

That could be why you have a preference for F and higher stones @cflutist! I did horribly on that color hue test you posted.

 

[the_mother_thing]

This intrigues me a bit because while some may identify variations in color more closely than others, that doesn't equate in my mind to also preferring the 'whiter' colors (in diamonds). I kind of think of them as two separate things independent of each other, but if I am reading correctly, there seems to be a correlation between the ability to see the colors more distinctly and preferring the whiter options. Interesting!

 

[bludiva]

This intrigues me a bit because while some may identify variations in color more closely than others, that doesn't equate in my mind to also preferring the 'whiter' colors (in diamonds). I kind of think of them as two separate things independent of each other, but if I am reading correctly, there seems to be a correlation between the ability to see the colors more distinctly and preferring the whiter options. Interesting!

+1 I see small differences in color but I still like a variety of color. There's nothing wrong with preferring NO color but I think a lot of people don't question why they feel that way. Reminds me of the saleslady who said she initially thought I had a dirty diamond but that I was so lucky b/c it was a fancy yellow. Same stone, only her perception of it changed.

 

[CareBear]

This intrigues me a bit because while some may identify variations in color more closely than others, that doesn't equate in my mind to also preferring the 'whiter' colors (in diamonds). I kind of think of them as two separate things independent of each other, but if I am reading correctly, there seems to be a correlation between the ability to see the colors more distinctly and preferring the whiter options. Interesting!

Because the whole darn grading system has ingrained in our minds that the more colorless the better.

 

[Miki Moto]

The search for large and perfect has always been there... even in the days of Tavernia and Golconda diamonds, everyone wanted the large and clear. What limited mankind then was technology and a standard for grading.

It is not a 20th or 21st century want. It dates far back into history.

 

[nala]

Because the whole darn grading system has ingrained in our minds that the more colorless the better.

I don’t know if it’s the system. I would love to own a D color Bc the icy whiteness looks so good against any type of metal. Rose gold. Yellow gold. Or a ruby or sapphire band. When I try these metals and gemstone bands with my I, I don’t see the same striking contrast that I appreciate with the Colorless stones. Rather, these colors make my I stone look more tinted. And to my eyes, tinted doesn’t look as bright as colorless, assuming cut is equal. So I wish that I could blame it on the system, Bc then I’d dismiss it. Lol.
ETA: I guess I gave I to carat size over color. Lol. As much as I can appreciate color.

 

[cflutist]

Because the whole darn grading system has ingrained in our minds that the more colorless the better.

No! I love my 2.31 Q-VVS2 halo as much as my 2.79 F-VS1 solitaire, and it was $50k cheaper.

They are both pretty in different ways. I have them both on right now. My poor pear has been sent for a timeout in the jewelry box as has Trilogie.

As I said before, enjoy the diversity that is available to us as buyers, fancy cuts, vintage cuts, MRBs, Octavias and Asschers, warm, cool, big, small, and everything else in between. Know what makes you happy, that is what matters. My friends said, you are buying a Q? they thought that I had a screw loose, oh wait, I have 14 screws and 3 titanium plates holding my skull together, let's hope that they never get loose.

 

[cflutist]

That could be why you have a preference for F and higher stones @cflutist! I did horribly on that color hue test you posted.

Well I took it again today and missed two after having 4 hours of sleep last night, must be getting old, I do get a senior discount you know lol.

Who was it who said that I had old lady hands and should use moisturizer? Lol

 

[gm89uk]

I score 0 on the Farnsworth Munsell 100 hue test, and can see difference in colour between D and F quite readily. In my wife's G I can see the colour in isolation but ultimately I don't care. It's so subtle, although noticeable to me, for the most part, the size and larger flashes from bigger carat, far outweigh nuisances of noticing tint, which is something far more delicate to appreciate.

For that reason I would drop to an H if we were ever to upgrade with a larger diamond, no doubt I'll see the colour, but it is still not enough to bother me. My wife similarly is not bothered about appreciating a slight tint. My dad has deuteranomaly (X-Linked, not inherited by males), and can differentiate colour of diamonds with finesse.

 

[doberman]

I learned something new today too. My father and brother are colorblind. I wonder if I am a carrier too? Might explain why I can see variations of tint, hue, tone, and saturation so well.

Do you have a son? It would likely show up there. This is an interesting read....you might fall asleep reading other material on the subject lol. Punnett squares...argh.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision

 

[EllieTO]

I hope I won't be threadjacking if I focus a bit on the colour sensitivity aspect. I did the test cflutist posted, and I scored 8. It's late in the day, I've had a bit of a headache all day, and my eyes were killing me doing the test, I was seeing stars. I honestly thought I was guessing a bunch of them. But my score showed that all the ones I got wrong were clustered in the blue to purple range. This can't be due to just chance, so I'm guessing the score really is valid and reflective of my colour sensitivity.



So this means I would distinguish colour differences more easily than most people. In practical terms, does this mean I should stick to, say, G or higher, or else the diamond would look a bit yellow to me? I haven't seen many diamonds up close at all. My old e-ring was an F, and it looked totally white to me, though I never compared it side by side with any others. So I'm guessing I would be safe to about a G or maybe H? But likely not an I? I know that a *preference* for white vs yellow is a different story, but in terms of noticing a difference, what do you guys think would be my limit?

To make things even harder for my boyfriend (fiance-to-be?) I have killer near vision and I'm pretty sure I could pick out inclusions that 95% of other people can't. Like, I can make out the "microprint" on the signature line of cheques! I am 35 though, so I might not have too many years left of that.

 

[bmfang]

Curious - for those Asian posters, are your husbands also Asian? If not, do they share the same "face saving" values that you do?

I’m Chinese as is my wife. After our super ideal purchases, my wife is not totally averse to stones in the G-K colour ranges now. While she wouldn’t turn away if I did purchase her a D-F IF-VVS stone, she’d more than likely slap me in the face for “wasting” that much money on a stone when we could use it for other more pressing concerns (ie my bubba boy).

If pushed to purchase a stone she would probably prefer to buy quality (ie eye clean [VS1-SI1], well proportioned stones in near colourless colours) over something she (and many of her friends and relatives) can’t see the difference with compared with a “lower” quality stone (like the superideals she has now are at least in terms of colour).

Last year, we went back to China and as I mentioned in a post on another thread while I was back there, I spent an inordinate amount of time in jewellery stores there just to see what was available and potentially buying my wife a present (if the price was right). Was shown at least 100 stones with their grading reports and found 5 stones that would fit within the PS community’s preferred range of specs (so pretty poor hit rate). But the prices were between 50-80% more expensive than on our PS community recommended vendors (so while gold and the labour cost to make a piece was cheap there, the price differential wouldn’t have made up for the ridiculous markup on stones).

The number of comments she got from the salesgirls at those stores about her BG Blue solitaire was quite astounding as the vast majority hadn’t seen a superideal stone before (those that had had seen HoF stones when they were sent for training in Hong Kong).

A large number of them also rubbished “lower” colour grades as being inferior stones (main reason given: lower colour meant stones were not going to sparkle and be brilliant compared with colourless stones). I asked a few of them what colour they thought her BG Blue was and all said between F-H.

The looks on their faces when I told them it was a K and showed them the PDF of the AGS report I have on my phone (I’m that sick to carry them around with me) was priceless.

 

[daneshpastry]

I bought my very first diamond recently. I'm a man, so I was looking for the best I could get, with size being the lowest priority. I ended up with a "ideal" cut D colour, VS1. I could have gone down in clarity due to the stone only being 1/4 carat, and probably the same with the colour, but I went with the one that spoke to me - and even in this tiny little rock, the D colour just glowed.

If I was to do it all again - I'll still place my first priority on cut, then colour, then clarity, then size. I read a lot of "well if you went down to a G you could get so much bigger", but I'd rather have better and smaller.

 

[WinkHPD]

The looks on their faces when I told them it was a K and showed them the PDF of the AGS report I have on my phone (I’m that sick to carry them around with me) was priceless.

I love it!

I wear a beautiful P color 1.53 ct and never has anyone guessed the color anywhere close to that, even professionals think it is a much higher color.

CUT IS KING!

Wink

 

[Aino]

This is a very interesting thread to read and highlights cultural preferences and norms.

About the clarity & color obsession. I was actually one of those silly ones wanting a D & IF stone in the beginning and it was hard to give in to an E & VVS2 For my E-ring I wanted a white stone and thanks to modern tech & HD images & videos, I could see inclusions in VS stones and some tint in G-H stones and it was a big no no. It was not "mind perfect" for me.

I think in modern days with online vendors and information over-flow, it feels just safe to go with a VVS/IF & D-F stone. When I read about inclusions there were so many articles which inclusions are "bad", which ones are not ok with prongs, which ones get reflected throughout the stone and finally which ones are ok. Quickly mind clean for me became a stone that has no inclusions under the highly magnified images. Perhaps in the future we can view them in a virtual reality environment and under a microscope and we will see even more silly ones like me looking for those IF stones

Choosing the clarity & color, boiled also down to money and compromising. I did not care about the size and just wanted something that looked good on my finger and fitted my culture. In my 0.5 - 1 carat size range, a few jumps in color and clarity does not cost you tens of thousands so my rationale was why not when it doesn't break the bank and I prefer it ? In bigger sizes I would need to compromise and not waste 10k + in something I cannot even notice myself in my daily life. But now I could get "my perfect" stone so I happily went for it and would do it again.

 

[CareBear]

The looks on their faces when I told them it was a K and showed them the PDF of the AGS report I have on my phone (I’m that sick to carry them around with me) was priceless.

I love the irony here, that you have to show your AGS to prove that your stone is a K and not a F-H.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

This is a great (and wide-ranging) thread. I have learned much so far - keep it up! Awesome!

 

[Maggiemeans]

Just took the color test and got a zero. I guess my advancing age hasn't gotten me yet.

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I

While some of the focus on color and clarity does have a cultural aspect, I think a lot of it comes from misinformation out on the internet that gets perpetuated on various wedding boards (One that rhymes with Wedding Tree comes to mind here ). You wouldn't believe how many people post things like:

"It's so sparkly and shiny! It must be a D/VVS!" Or

"My husband really spoiled me. He wanted the most brilliant and firey stone, so he got me a D/IF. You know what they say, quality over quantity."

Little do they know that color and clarity mostly* have little to no effect on the sparkliness or fireyness of a diamond. That's mostly due to cut. But it doesn't stop people from placing way too much importance on the other two Cs.

I feel like 90% of the advice posted by the long-time members here on PS comes down to convincing new members that they don't need to get a D-F color or VVS clarity diamond, and that their money would be better spent on getting a larger stone.


*I say mostly, because an I1 diamond with clouds as the grade-setting inclusion will likely have reduced optical performance, and an M-color diamond may look a little more dull than a D color. But within reasonable limits, color and clarity have little to no effect. Diamonds in the G-I and SI1-VS2 range will, for the most part, have just as much sparkliness and fireyness as a D/IF with the same cut.

While some of the focus on color and clarity does have a cultural aspect, I think a lot of it comes from misinformation out on the internet that gets perpetuated on various wedding boards (One that rhymes with Wedding Tree comes to mind here ). You wouldn't believe how many people post things like:

"It's so sparkly and shiny! It must be a D/VVS!" Or

"My husband really spoiled me. He wanted the most brilliant and firey stone, so he got me a D/IF. You know what they say, quality over quantity."

Little do they know that color and clarity mostly* have little to no effect on the sparkliness or fireyness of a diamond. That's mostly due to cut. But it doesn't stop people from placing way too much importance on the other two Cs.

I feel like 90% of the advice posted by the long-time members here on PS comes down to convincing new members that they don't need to get a D-F color or VVS clarity diamond, and that their money would be better spent on getting a larger stone.


*I say mostly, because an I1 diamond with clouds as the grade-setting inclusion will likely have reduced optical performance, and an M-color diamond may look a little more dull than a D color. But within reasonable limits, color and clarity have little to no effect. Diamonds in the G-I and SI1-VS2 range will, for the most part, have just as much sparkliness and fireyness as a D/IF with the same cut.

For me, it all comes down to personal preference. Of course, cut is most important, but I'm super color sensitive, and can usually spot the inclusions in a VS2 without magnification, so I shop accordingly. The bottom line, in my opinion, is to find what your personal tolerance are.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I will throw something out that I don't think has been mentioned. I have had a lot of Asian clients in my long career. Commonly, young shoppers would come in with their parents and often with grand parents. It was clear to me that the elders had great influence over the purchase, and they were almost without exception only interested in colorless VVS. As a young gemologist and gem dealer I found this interesting because my Caucasian customers were generally looking for 'bang for the buck'. So I would often engage in conversation with the elders and this is what I gleaned: as has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, these 'collection goods' as dealers refer to them are considered the rarest and most valuable. (The elders knew little about cutting and GIA did not put a cut grade on their reports back in the day so it was a non-issue for most.) But a related aspect, in addition to the concept of 'best quality/most valuable' was a conscious consideration of diamond as 'flight currency' and 'stored value'. In areas of the world where political or economic stability is uncertain, diamonds were considered a means of survival if a family had to flee in a hurry and perhaps land in another country, or just survive a serious economic downturn. Those things have happened throughout history and diamonds have been a lifeline for many people. It was believed that only these collection type goods would have liquidity.

I believe that if you go back a couple of generations this is at the heart of certain cultural preferences.

 

[cflutist]

Thank you for your post @Texas Leaguer .
That also might explain why my late grandmother's jewelry was all 24k gold. She immigrated from China. She didn't have any diamonds though, that didn't happen until my late mother's and my generation. There is no turning back now

 

[WinkHPD]

But a related aspect, in addition to the concept of 'best quality/most valuable' was a conscious consideration of diamond as 'flight currency' and 'stored value'. In areas of the world where political or economic stability is questionable, diamonds were considered a means of survival if a family had to flee in a hurry and perhaps land in another country, or just survive a serious economic downturn.

Great point Bryan,

You remind me of an incident early in my career when I had a "regular" retail store in downtown Boise, Idaho. Would have been in late 1979 or early 1980.

I had been invited to a lady's investment group luncheon at one of the local country clubs.

As I started my presentation an older lady interrupted me to state that she and her family had fled pre war Germany only weeks before the war started. They all had jewelry, diamonds and gems hidden in the seams of their clothing. They had spent a fortune on these gems for generations and when they got to New York they were only able to get pennies on the dollar as they sold them off for several years before they were back on their feet again. Therefore all jewelry was a horrible investment! She then sat back down and crossed her arms and glared at me.

I asked her politely, "How much money could you have carried had you not had the diamonds and gems?"

"Well it wouldn't have mattered, it was all worthless due to hyperinflation!"

"How much gold could you have carried had you spent the money on gold?"

"We could not have carried gold, it would have been taken from us when we boarded the ship, or if we got it on board it would have been stolen from us!"

"Did you have enough money from the pennies on the dollar to buy food and pay rent?"

"Yes, but it was a lousy return!"

"Hmmm," I said after thinking for a moment. "It seems like it was the only unit of value that transcended your national currency that you could easily hide and carry. It fed you, clothed you and kept a roof over your head until you could learn the language here and get a career. Although I agree with you that for the average citizen, jewelry is a horrible investment for capital growth, I think it was absolutely the best 'run for the border' investment you could ever have made."

She thought for a moment and then said, "I never thought of it like that, I kept thinking we should have gotten many times what we got and never appreciated that any other thing we could have brought from Germany would have been worth nothing."

She smiled and we talked for hours after the presentation. I was supposed to talk from 12:30 to 1:30 and the ladies kept me there until 3 and I did not leave until after 5.

It was a real eye opener for me, as I had never really thought about jewelry as a "run for the border" investment as I have been blessed to be born and to live in the United States.

Thank you for "tweaking" that memory out of the long dark parts of my brain.

Wink

 

[tuckie]

As far as testing out, here is a quick Munsell hue test that other PSers can take.
http://www.colormunki.com/game/huetest_kiosk

I didn't miss any of them but my hubby missed 25. I am sure that @arkieb1 will also score as high as I did.

I missed 25. I guess I can save a lot on lower colored stones!

 

[KaeKae]

@Wink
Your story reminded me of a similar story told to my brother and me, when we were kids. It was a lovely man, who was neighbors with my aunt. He and his wife had left Russia with gold sold into the seams of their clothes. How they made it all the way to America without it being found, I don't know. We were just mesmerized by that story.

 

[bmfang]

Thank you for your post @Texas Leaguer .
That also might explain why my late grandmother's jewelry was all 24k gold. She immigrated from China. She didn't have any diamonds though, that didn't happen until my late mother's and my generation. There is no turning back now

For most of my family and my wife’s family, the concept of diamonds being a “flight currency” or an item of “stored value” doesn’t ring as true as items like 22k (SE Asia “standard”) gold (or 24k gold and more recently pure unalloyed platinum in China) and jade (primarily jadeite, though I have a soft spot for nephrite as well as jadeite). They always see these two items as being more inherently sellable at short notice rather than diamonds (or any type of gemstones). It’s probably only my generation where gemstones have started to come into play as a measure of stored value (but the bias towards gold still remains).

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

I would like to ask U.S. Pricescope members how the cultural preference of "bigger is better" started.

Ha! Ha! I guess it probably all started at the Industrial Age where in the USA people left their farms and went to the city to work in the factories. People begin to have more money for luxury goods and cars, homes became more affordable after the war...so people spent on large homes and cars...then came convenient fast foods like ‘Big Mac’ and super size foods and then there you go- Bigger is better!.....